RED ALERT!! Supreme court rules against 2nd amendment in devistatinng opinionn

Status
Not open for further replies.
OP
MindWars

MindWars

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
42,227
Reaction score
10,639
Points
2,040
More from the Washington Times:

The justices denied Remington’s request to review the case as it carries on in Connecticut courts.

The gun manufacturer had challenged the legal battle against it, saying federal law generally prohibits lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers when criminal use results from such a sale.

The same law firm suing Remington Arms is also suing Alex Jones, which means that the First Amendment is as threatened as the Second.

The lawyer representing Remington, Scott Keller, said the lawsuit against the manufacturer “is exactly the kind of case arising from a criminal’s misuse of a firearm that ‘may not be brought in any federal or state court.'”
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,666
Reaction score
1,398
Points
275
I am sure they will review it again after the trial and appeals
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
116,518
Reaction score
18,543
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
116,518
Reaction score
18,543
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
More from the Washington Times:

The justices denied Remington’s request to review the case as it carries on in Connecticut courts.

The gun manufacturer had challenged the legal battle against it, saying federal law generally prohibits lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers when criminal use results from such a sale.

The same law firm suing Remington Arms is also suing Alex Jones, which means that the First Amendment is as threatened as the Second.

The lawyer representing Remington, Scott Keller, said the lawsuit against the manufacturer “is exactly the kind of case arising from a criminal’s misuse of a firearm that ‘may not be brought in any federal or state court.'”
Oh good. The Moonies.


Just gets more and more credible. Devistatinngly so.
 
OP
MindWars

MindWars

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
42,227
Reaction score
10,639
Points
2,040
I am sure they will review it again after the trial and appeals
we can hope so you know how most are a bit to stupid to figure it out to where if you :

Hit somebody with a baseball and it kills them or severely harms them they too can now be sued and responsible-------

If you tripped knocked someone over now you can be sued for your accident and LOSE

if your car hits somebody and kills them the car maker now gets sued lmfao PPL R FUCKING IDIOTS!!
 

EvilEyeFleegle

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
6,269
Reaction score
1,368
Points
375
I am sure they will review it again after the trial and appeals
we can hope so you know how most are a bit to stupid to figure it out to where if you :

Hit somebody with a baseball and it kills them or severely harms them they too can now be sued and responsible-------

If you tripped knocked someone over now you can be sued for your accident and LOSE

if your car hits somebody and kills them the car maker now gets sued lmfao PPL R FUCKING IDIOTS!!
Not that I really care about this..but your logic is flawed...hitting someone with a ball is a misuse of the intended purpose. It was not foreseeable.

If you trip..you may be sued already..depends if your accident was foreseeable and/or the result of your carelessness.

If you hit someone..and kill them with your car...if some damage or defect is discovered--damn right. The maker gets sued.

There is precedent....the tobacco lawsuits.....the Oxycontin settlements.

Tort law is a weird thing--if the jury finds that there is a causal linkage between Remington's marketing..and the loss of their children--the Plaintiff might get the nod. If they do..be hard to overturn.

No matter..the 2nd is safe..as the ruling would affect Gun makers..not your right to bear arms.
 

Dekster

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2014
Messages
7,666
Reaction score
1,398
Points
275
I am sure they will review it again after the trial and appeals
we can hope so you know how most are a bit to stupid to figure it out to where if you :

Hit somebody with a baseball and it kills them or severely harms them they too can now be sued and responsible-------

If you tripped knocked someone over now you can be sued for your accident and LOSE

if your car hits somebody and kills them the car maker now gets sued lmfao PPL R FUCKING IDIOTS!!
But can the baseball bat manufacturer, your shoe lace manufacturer and your car manufacturer be sued for your negligence or intentional acts?

Anyway I assume they are going for the negligence exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act but I haven't really followed the case that much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top